Avir at Bradburn
520 Bradburn Rd., Grand Saline, TX 75140 · For profit - Corporation · 76 certified beds · (903) 962-4234 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $136,027 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-25)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (84%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- CMS ownership filings flag it as owned by a private-equity firm or REIT — a category that performs worse on staffing on average, though that average says nothing certain about this home, and CMS filings undercount these ties, so other homes here may have them unflagged (what the research actually shows →)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.2% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.9% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.7% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 11.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.8% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.4% | 9.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 2.17 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.18 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 6.6–15.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 76 beds and averages 30.4 residents a day — about 40% occupied, or roughly 46 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.60 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 84% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-09-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 of 7 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's wound care orders were implemented on 9/4/25 Wound Care NP's orders. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2 received proper wound care to prevent deterioration and infection to their surgical wounds. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's wound care orders were implemented on 9/11/25 and changed on 9/18/25 per the Wound Care NP's orders. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at 2:20 p.m. on 9/24/25. While the IJ was removed on 9/25/25, the facility remained out of compliance with a scope identified as patterned and a severity level of actual harm due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-25 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including the accurate acquiring, administering and receipt of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of 1 of 9 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's antibiotic (Cleocin) was started on 9/19/25 when ordered from the Vascular Surgery NP instead waiting 2 days until 9/21/25 to initiate the antibiotic. The facility failed to ensure the nurses had access to the Pyxis (a machine used to safely and efficiently dispense medications) to obtain available medication such as antibiotics while waiting for pharmacy to deliver medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's antibiotic was initial dosed when delivered from the pharmacy on 9/20/25 instead initiating the antibiotic on 9/21/25 and Resident #1 required hospitalization due to infection on 9/22/25. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at 2:20 p.m. on 9/24/25.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or representative had the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered care plan for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for the right to participate in planning care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #1's representatives were included in the development and implementation of Resident #1's baseline, comprehensive, and discharge care plans. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving adequate and individualized care while a resident of the facility and after discharge from the facility. Findings included: A record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/21/2026 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility 04/01/2026. He had diagnoses which included sepsis with septic shock (body's extreme, life threatening response to an infection characterized by dangerously low blood pressure and potential organ failure - considered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report the results of an investigation in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey agency, within 5 working days of the incident for 1 of 4 incidents reviewed for reporting. The facility failed to provide the State Survey Agency with a report of the results of an investigation of an allegation of abuse within 5 working days of the incident. The facility reported an allegation of abuse regarding Resident #2 on 05/06/2026. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse if alleged violations are verified and appropriate corrective actions are not taken. Findings included: A record review of a face sheet dated 05/21/2026 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses which included lupus erythematosus (chronic, inflammatory disease where the body's immune system mistakenly attacks healthy cells and tissues), bipolar disorder, anxiety, factitious disorder imposed on another…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 2 medication carts (Nurses cart) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure the nursing staff responsible for the safekeeping of narcotics performed and documented change of shift narcotic counts. This failure could place residents at risk for loss of medications and possible drug diversion. Findings included: A record review of a face sheet dated 05/21/2026 indicated Resident #3 was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses which included spinal stenosis (the narrowing of the spaces within the spine which puts pressure on the spinal cord and nerves), chronic neck and back pain, lumbar radiculopathy (irritation or compression of a nerve root in the lower back causing pain,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 3 staff (Treatment Nurse) and 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure the Treatment Nurse performed appropriate glove changes and hand hygiene between glove changes while performing wound care on Resident #1 on 12/12/25. This failure could place residents at risk for cross-contamination, spread of infection and could potentially affect all others in the building. Findings included: During an observation on 12/12/25 at 10:07 a.m., the Treatment Nurse did not perform hand hygiene, applied clean gloves, entered Resident #1's room, cleansed the bedside table, laid down a barrier (a protective pad to keep wound care supplies clean), set her supplies on top of the barrier, and removed her gloves. The Treatment Nurse did not perform hand hygiene…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-11-24 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for pharmacy. The facility failed to ensure oral antibiotic medication was administered to Resident #1 as ordered, resulting in a medication error. As a result of incorrect medication entry, Resident #1 did not receive 6- days of prescribed oral antibiotic, specifically, (Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim oral table 400-80 MG Bactrim), as ordered following hospitalization for sepsis and ureteral stent placement. This failure does not ensure that residents receive necessary treatment to prevent potential decline or worsening of infection. Findings included: A review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 11/20/2024 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted on [DATE] diagnoses of cerebrovascular disease (conditions affecting the blood vessels in the brain), cystostomy (surgery of the bladder to remove bladder stones, clots, tumors,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions in the facility's only kitchen observed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure: - items in the reach in cooler had a label and an open date. -items on the prep table had been opened and not labeled with the open date. These failures could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. Findings included: During observations, interviews and record reviews on 05/027/25 of the kitchen the following was noted: On 05/27/25 at 10:16 AM in the 3-door cooler 1-46 oz honey thick Orange Juice was not dated when opened. It had a truck delivery date on the container of 05/07/2025. 1-46 oz. nectar thick Orange Juice was not dated when opened. It had a truck delivery date on the container of 05/14/2025. The packaging on the container reads: After opening may be kept up to 7 days under refrigeration. 1 small white bowl of white substance plastic covering dated 05/20/25. 1 small square plastic covered container with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Bcited before2025-05-29 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms measured at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and at least 100 square feet in single resident rooms for 2 of 10 resident rooms (Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and 311) reviewed for square footage. The facility failed to provide 80 square feet per resident for a room certified for 4 residents and provide 100 square feet for a room certified as a private room. These failures could place residents at risk of not having adequate space to meet their needs. Findings included: During an observation on initial tour on 05/27/2025 at 10:40 AM, it was observed that no residents were residing in room [ROOM NUMBER] and no residents were residing in room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an interview on 05/28/2025 at 9:45 AM, the Administrator said resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] still required room waivers. She said room [ROOM NUMBER] was certified for 4 residents and measured 74 square feet per resident and room [ROOM NUMBER]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Bcited before2024-04-16 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms measured at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and at least 100 square feet in single resident rooms for 2 of 10 resident rooms (Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and 311) reviewed for square footage. The facility failed to provide 80 square feet per resident for a room certified for 4 residents and provide 100 square feet for a room certified as a private room. These failures could place residents at risk of not having adequate space to meet their needs. Findings include: During an observation on initial tour on 04/14/2024 at 10:20 AM, it was observed that 2 residents resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] and no residents were residing in room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an interview on 04/16/2024 at 2:30 PM, the Administrator said resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] still required room waivers. She said room [ROOM NUMBER] was certified for 4 residents and measured 74 square feet per resident and room [ROOM NUMBER] was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Bcited before2023-03-15 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident rooms measured at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and at least 100 square feet in single resident rooms for 2 of 10 resident rooms (Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and 311) reviewed for square footage. The facility failed to provide 80 square feet per resident for a room certified for 4 residents and provide 100 square feet for a room certified as a private room. These failures could place residents at risk of not having adequate space to meet their needs. Findings include: During an observation on initial tour on 03/13/2023 at 9:20 A.M. revealed 2 residents resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] and no residents were residing in room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an interview on 03/15/2023 at 8:30 A. M., the Administrator said resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] still required room waivers. She said room [ROOM NUMBER] was certified for 4 residents and measured 74 square feet per resident and room [ROOM NUMBER] was certified as a private room…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$136,027 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $136,027 — penalty dated 2025-09-25
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AVIR HEALTH GROUP — 116 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 115 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 115; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as a real-estate investment trust (REIT). That’s a fact worth knowing: peer-reviewed research links private-equity and REIT ownership to lower staffing and more citations on average — though any individual home can run well or poorly regardless. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- WELLTOWER OP, LLC — REIT · 100.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 520 BRADBURN ROAD HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2025 |
| TX SNF HOLDINGS ,LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2025 |
| 520 BRADBURN ROAD PROPERTY OWNER, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| WELLTOWER INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| WELLTOWER NNN GROUP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| FREUND, NOCHUM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| HOLDERREAD, LYNN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| TRAVITSKY, AARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| WELLTOWER OP, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $169K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 675320. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-29, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.